Critical Reasoning

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.
(E) In the snow goose's winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

OA: B.

saswata4s wrote:Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.
(E) In the snow goose's winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

OA: B.

Boiled way down the argument is as follows:

- The snow geese displace other Arctic birds.
- There is currently a law that ends hunting season once the snow geese population is decreased by 5%.
- Conclusion: If we eliminate the law, the displaced Arctic bird species will recover

The built-in assumption here is that by eliminating the law, hunters will kill more snow geese. But if they'd been killing less than 5% of the snow geese each season, then eliminating the restriction won't matter. It's only relevant if hunters wish to kill more than 5% of the population. If they'd been killing, say, 1% of the population before the restriction is lifted, there's every reason to believe that they'd continue to kill 1% of the population. This is the idea captured by B, the correct answer.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote: Boiled way down the argument is as follows:

- The snow geese displace other Arctic birds.
- There is currently a law that ends hunting season once the snow geese population is decreased by 5%.
- Conclusion: If we eliminate the law, the displaced Arctic bird species will recover

The built-in assumption here is that by eliminating the law, hunters will kill more snow geese. But if they'd been killing less than 5% of the snow geese each season, then eliminating the restriction won't matter. It's only relevant if hunters wish to kill more than 5% of the population. If they'd been killing, say, 1% of the population before the restriction is lifted, there's every reason to believe that they'd continue to kill 1% of the population. This is the idea captured by B, the correct answer.

Hi David,

For B, can't we think that the 5% limit reached much early because of excessive hunting, and hence, the hunting season was closed before its scheduled closing date?

saswata4s wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote: Boiled way down the argument is as follows:

- The snow geese displace other Arctic birds.
- There is currently a law that ends hunting season once the snow geese population is decreased by 5%.
- Conclusion: If we eliminate the law, the displaced Arctic bird species will recover

The built-in assumption here is that by eliminating the law, hunters will kill more snow geese. But if they'd been killing less than 5% of the snow geese each season, then eliminating the restriction won't matter. It's only relevant if hunters wish to kill more than 5% of the population. If they'd been killing, say, 1% of the population before the restriction is lifted, there's every reason to believe that they'd continue to kill 1% of the population. This is the idea captured by B, the correct answer.

Hi David,

For B, can't we think that the 5% limit reached much early because of excessive hunting, and hence, the hunting season was closed before its scheduled closing date?

Remember, we're not trying to determine which answer is true. We're trying to determine which answer choice, if true, would undermine the argument.

We're told that once the population has been reduced by 5%, the hunting season is ended. Therefore, if it's the case that the hunting season hasn't ended early in many years - as we're told in B - it must be true that the 5% figure hasn't been reached during this time. In other words, in the last several years, it must be true that less than 5% of the geese have been killed, otherwise the hunting season would have ended early.